|
|
|
|
|
|
by compee
4877 days ago
|
|
|
You are stating all of this within the context that the governments should have nuclear weapons. The people (around the world) should have free and open nuclear power. Just because we have nuclear weapons does not mean we should have to use them in negotiations. Sure it helps to have power in any negotiating situation but why do we even get to a point? Isn't that akin to saying "We have power. You don't. Do what we want." This is not how government should be run. Feel free to message me to continue discussion. |
|
|
This contradicts a bedrock diplomatic principle: one must pay attention, not to your opponent's stated intentions, but to his capabilities. Therefore if your opponent has nuclear weapons, it doesn't matter what he says he's going to do, it only matters what he is capable of with everything at his disposal.
Therefore, in negotiations, the existence of nuclear weapons becomes the elephant in the room, regardless of what's actually being discussed.
> Isn't that akin to saying "We have power. You don't. Do what we want." This is not how government should be run.
But that is how governments are run. One must pay attention to reality as well as ideals. Remember that politics is the art of the possible.